Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison Co.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener · The case as printed (Library of Congress)
Syllabus
The syllabus is prepared by the Reporter of Decisions and is not part of the opinion of the Court. It is shown as printed in the United States Reports, read from the text layer of the Library of Congress scan (optical character recognition in older volumes, not yet checked word by word against the page).
Petitioner brought suit against respondent, a privately owned and operated utility corporation which holds a certificate of public convenience issued by the Pennsylvania Utility Commission, seeking damages and injunctive relief under 42 U. S. C. § 1983 for termination of her electric service allegedly before she had been afforded notice, a hearing, and an opportunity to pay any amounts found due. Petitioner claimed that under state law she was entitled to reasonably continuous electric service and that respondent's termination for alleged nonpayment, permitted by a provision of its general tariff filed with the Commission, was state action depriving petitioner of her property without due process of law and giving rise to a cause of action under § 1983. The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's dismissal of petitioner's complaint. Held: Pennsylvania is not sufficiently connected with the challenged termination to make respondents conduct attributable to the State for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment, petitioner having shown no more than that respondent was a heavily regulated private utility with a partial monopoly and that it elected to terminate service in a manner that the Commission found permissible under state law. Cf. Moose Lodge No. 107 v. Irvis, 407 U. S. 163. Public Utilities Comm'n v. Pollak, 343 U. S. 451; Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority, 365 U. S. 715, distinguished. Pp. 349-359.
Printed on p. 345 of the United States Reports, read from the text layer of the Library of Congress scan. View the page image
483 F. 2d 754, affirmed.
Printed on p. 345 of the United States Reports, read from the text layer of the Library of Congress scan. View the page image
Provisions
The Constitution Annotated's essays on these provisions cite this case.
- Amendment XIVsuggested link
Source: Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation (2022 ed.), essays Amdt14.1, Amdt14.2, pp. 2053, 2059, 2060, 2061, 2063.
- Amendment Isuggested link
Source: Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation (2022 ed.), essays Amdt1.7.2.4, pp. 1403, 1404, 1405.
Why it is here
The library's first set of cases is chosen by fixed rules from the Constitution Annotated (2022), which cites this case as “Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison Co., 419 U.S. 345 (1974)”:
- most cited in essay topic Amdt14.2 (5 pages)